Arctic ice

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Perhaps you'd like to explain who or what 'climate audit' is?

No look it up yourself.

BFTP

[biffvernon]

Sorry, Snowbear, you didn't get the joke. I'm all too aware of who runs Climateaudit but I'm trying really hard not to launch into vitriolic ad hominem attacks, but they really are a bunch of... no, no, behave yourself.

[laserguy]

Sorry, Snowbear, you didn't get the joke. I'm all too aware of who runs Climateaudit but I'm trying really hard not to launch into vitriolic ad hominem attacks, but they really are a bunch of... no, no, behave yourself.

No,no! Save that sort of nonsense for the IPCC and Al Bore!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I won't try to claim that the IPCC are a non-biased group, but I can say from experience that they do at least make some effort to minimise the extent of their inherent biases, unlike some other groups we know of.

[Bobby]

Accusations that the IPCC are biased and thus their conclusions are untrustworthy may have some merit if they were the only organisation and only people predicting what they are. But there are thousands of other major independent peer reviewed studies from all over the world that come to the same conclusions, or even more pessimistic ones.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Accusations that the IPCC are biased and thus their conclusions are untrustworthy may have some merit if they were the only organisation and only people predicting what they are. But there are thousands of other major independent peer reviewed studies from all over the world that come to the same conclusions, or even more pessimistic ones.

Indeed, conclusions that are not coming into bear.

BFTP

[bluecon]

Sorry, Snowbear, you didn't get the joke. I'm all too aware of who runs Climateaudit but I'm trying really hard not to launch into vitriolic ad hominem attacks, but they really are a bunch of... no, no, behave yourself.

A bunch of people that don't believe a slight increase in harmless CO2 gas will cause the end of the Earth.

[The PIT]

Accusations that the IPCC are biased and thus their conclusions are untrustworthy may have some merit if they were the only organisation and only people predicting what they are. But there are thousands of other major independent peer reviewed studies from all over the world that come to the same conclusions, or even more pessimistic ones.

Possibly with a vested interest which is the reason why they agree. Plenty also disagree who also may have an invested interest. However I think there's been enough information leaked out that IPCC isn't 100% reliable.

[biffvernon]

A bunch of people that don't believe a slight increase in harmless CO2 gas will cause the end of the Earth.

Neither would I if CO2 were harmless.

[laserguy]

Neither would I if CO2 were harmless.

It is,totally. Unless we're talking the kind of concentrations sufficient to cause asphyxia.

[biffvernon]

There is just no way one can have a scientific conversation with folk who take that view :lol:

[beng]

There is just no way one can have a scientific conversation with folk who take that view :lol:

So why not discuss the science? I rarely see much hard science discussed on this - all we ever see are floating polar beers.

Have a look at what wavelengths of infra red radiation CO2 can actually absorb? Then have a think about the fact that there's only 380 parts of CO2 in the atmosphere to evey million. Consider further that the atmosphere is not infinitely thick and that might sway your oppinion on how much energy additional human released CO2 can actually absorb.

You should also bear in mind that we need CO2 to survive, if the atmospheric content drops below around 200 parts/million then it's possible plant life will die back enough to trigger extinctions. During the little ice age it's believed that CO2 levels got quite close to that level (although how accurate those measurements are I'm not sure).

CO2 is a small greenhouse gas, and the scary scenarios are all as a result of possible positive feedback from things such as water vapour among other things. If you're not convinced by the water vapour feedback idea (which i'm not - and apparently neither is Nasa's AQUA satellite - and nor is the historic temperature records - or we'd see feedback in them - rather than abrupt cooling on several occasions) then CO2 ceases to be very scary since the maximum warming then is reduced drastically.

:lol:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Neither would I if CO2 were harmless.

Where will this discussion lead???

BFTP

Edited May 10, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Bobby]

I think saying that CO2 is "harmless" is a bit silly. In small enough quantities it is, but try taking a visit to Venus sometime and then say it is "harmless". Too much CO2 is certainly a very bad thing.

[SnowBear]

I think the comparison to Venus is a little way out, a number of factors differentiate between Venus and Earth which make that comparison kinda null and void.

Venus has an orbit around the sun which is 70% that of Earth's. All the water boiled away on Venus due to it being that much closer to the sun and Earth would have been almost exactly the same if in that orbit.

If a 30% decrease in orbit produces a total failure of the water systems on a planet, what would a smaller amount of 1%? The small change in the Earth's orbit from max to min distances from the Sun (around 6 million km) is what drives the major ice ages. Thats is a 4% variation in orbit I think?

If anything in my mind it reinforces in some ways the amount of effect the Sun does have on climate and the possibility that a tiny variation in solar output and/or orbit would have quite an effect on a planet's climate.

With that in mind the increase in solar output since the Maunder Minimum could quite easily explain the current warmer period and if that output is now going to decrease it is not unreasonable to expect the climate to respond accordingly.

Edited May 10, 2008 by SnowBear

[Bobby]

I know all that - I'm not comparing Earth to Venus or saying we could end up like Venus - but it shows that too much CO2 is not a good idea. It's not harmless. Imagine if our atmosphere was 96.5% carbon dioxide like Venus, we'd roast.

[The PIT]

I know all that - I'm not comparing Earth to Venus or saying we could end up like Venus - but it shows that too much CO2 is not a good idea. It's not harmless. Imagine if our atmosphere was 96.5% carbon dioxide like Venus, we'd roast.

Make for pretty rapid Barbies thought wouldn't. Put the Bangers on Luv damn they've already burnt.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I know all that - I'm not comparing Earth to Venus or saying we could end up like Venus - but it shows that too much CO2 is not a good idea. It's not harmless. Imagine if our atmosphere was 96.5% carbon dioxide like Venus, we'd roast.

Magpie

No we wouldn't necessarily roast mate, CO2 is not that big a driver...far from it

Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 and guess what................

The average recorded temperature on Mars is -63 °C (-81 °F) with a maximum temperature of 20 °C (68 °F) and a minimum of -140 °C (-220 °F)."

So maybe we won't roast

It's much more to with how close to the sun the planet is

BFTP

Edited May 10, 2008 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Bobby]

True but Mars has a much thinner atmosphere. A high percentage of CO2 but not that much. Also a good deal further away from the sun.

[millennia]

True but Mars has a much thinner atmosphere. A high percentage of CO2 but not that much. Also a good deal further away from the sun.

Exactly, and that is the real bear in the woods for Venus. It has 90 times the atmospheric pressure on its surface than Earth, which makes for a warming effect some 300,000 TIMES that of the CO2 on earth today. Added to that the clouds of sulphuric acid (that would ruin your barbie ) which have been shown to be black at the infra-red end of the spectrum (so the high albedo of Venus is just in the visible range), so they let the heat in from the Sun and the massive concentration of CO2 traps it there. Add that to a 70% smaller orbit and you get a surface temperature of 500C - which isn't really a surprise!

So you might call CO2 a dangerous gas when it's dense enough to crush you flat, in a concentration that would asphyxiate you, and the Earth 30% closer to the Sun. That would be enough to make anything pretty dangerous I reckon!

Personally I think anybody who describes CO2 as a pollutant should be made to wear a space suit with 100% oxygen in it and see how quickly they drop to bits as all their cells oxidize - then I suppose we'd all be calling oxygen a pollutant too

[laserguy]

I think saying that CO2 is "harmless" is a bit silly. In small enough quantities it is, but try taking a visit to Venus sometime and then say it is "harmless". Too much CO2 is certainly a very bad thing.

Perspective! :

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AN_ELEPHAN...CHERRY_TREE.pdf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Perspective! :

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AN_ELEPHAN...CHERRY_TREE.pdf

A very interesting piece. Like I said on another thread, I believe we are in the mix but not by much. This supports that view.

BFTP

[Devonian]

Magpie

No we wouldn't necessarily roast mate, CO2 is not that big a driver...far from it

Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 and guess what................

The average recorded temperature on Mars is -63 °C (-81 °F) with a maximum temperature of 20 °C (68 °F) and a minimum of -140 °C (-220 °F)."

So maybe we won't roast B)

It's much more to with how close to the sun the planet is

BFTP

One, 'tiny', difference between the two atmosphere we might draw our attention to:

Mars surface pressure ~ .6mb

Venus surface pressure ~ 93000mb

Edited May 11, 2008 by Devonian

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

One, 'tiny', difference between the two atmosphere we might draw our attention to:

Mars surface pressure ~ .6mb

Venus surface pressure ~ 93000mb

One huge difference

Venus 67million miles from the sun

Mars 142 million miles from the sun

LaserG post also explains the CO2 atmosphere bit nicely. I doubt that Venus' atmosphere/temps would be the same if it was over twice the distance from the sun than it is now.

BFTP

[Devonian]

One huge difference

Venus 67million miles from the sun

Mars 142 million miles from the su

That's about double, the atmospheres are about 93,000 times different...

LaserG post also explains the CO2 atmosphere bit nicely. I doubt that Venus' atmosphere/temps would be the same if it was over twice the distance from the sun than it is now.

BFTP

But it isn't B)